×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔
no photo

Mary M. Ruth Feldhake

Not yet reviewed

1 Unknown, Indianapolis, IN 46204

Healthcare, Healthcare Disputes and Litigation, Healthcare Litigation & Medical Malpractice Defense and 4 more

About Mary M. Ruth Feldhake

Mary M. Ruth Feldhake is a lawyer practicing healthcare, healthcare disputes and litigation, healthcare litigation & medical malpractice defense and 4 other areas of law. Mary M. Ruth received a A.S. degree from Indiana University School of Allied Health Science, in 1980, and has been licensed for 37 years. Mary M. Ruth practices in Indianapolis, IN.

Awards

AV Preeminent Peer Rated
This elite award is granted to attorneys who have been recognized by their peers for their very high ethical standards, with an average peer review score of 4.5 or higher.
Martindale-Hubbell Peer AV

Client Champion Awards

Client Champion awards recognize those attorneys who excel at service as affirmed by their clients. The awards, based on the quantity and quality of an attorney’s Martindale-Hubbell client reviews, demonstrate an ongoing commitment to delivering excellent client service. Award recipients stand out from their peers with a platinum, gold or silver icon.

Champion Badge Silver

At least three reviews and a score of 4.0 or higher.

Champion Badge Gold

At least six reviews and a score of 4.2 or higher.

Champion Badge Platinum

At least ten reviews and a score of 4.5 or higher.

Martindale Peer Awards

A lawyer who receives a minimum threshold of qualifying responses from fellow attorneys can qualify for one of three prestigious Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings:

Martindale-Hubbell Peer AV Preeminent Rating

AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

Mary M. Ruth Feldhake got this award in 2021

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Distinguished Rating

Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Notable Rating

Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Avvo Awards

Avvo Top Contributor

Avvo Top Contributor: The Avvo Top Contributor Award is granted to attorneys who have earned significant contribution points in a given year on our sister site, Avvo.com. Contribution points are earned by answering questions in Q&A, publishing Legal Guides, and other useful contributions to the Avvo community.

Avvo Client Choice

Avvo Client’s Choice: The Avvo Client's Choice Award Badge is granted to attorneys with a significant number of 4+ star reviews in a given year.

Reviews for Mary M. Ruth

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Litigation
  • Other 6
    • Healthcare
    • Healthcare Disputes and Litigation
    • Healthcare Litigation & Medical Malpractice Defense
    • Medical Malpractice Defense
    • Medical Professional Liability and Licensing Proceedings
    • Professional Licensure, Liability and Disciplinary Litigation

Practice Details

  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Representative Matters: Thompson v. Cope et al., 2018 WL 2244777
    Thompson v. Cope et al., 2018 WL 1438258
    Thompson v. Cope et al., 2018 WL 733970
    Spaulding v. Harris, 914 N.E.2d 820
    (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)
    Jervis v. Mitcheff, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83730 (N.D. Ind. 2006)
    Henderson v. Wishard Memorial Hospital, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21780 (S.D. Ind. 2006)
    Wishard Memorial Hospital v. Kerr, 846 N.E.2d 1083 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)
    Chamberlain v. Walpole, 796 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)
    Estate of Norris v. Putnam County Sheriff, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19014 (S.D. Ind. 2002)
    Estate of Norris v. Putnam County Sheriff, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5102 (S.D. Ind. 2002)
    Smith v. Johnston, 711 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1999)
    Southwood v. Carlson, 704 N.E.2d 163 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)
    Hughes v. Glaese, 637 N.E.2d 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1989, Indiana
    Indiana Supreme Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    Memberships

    Appointments / Memberships

    Indianapolis Bar Association (Board Member on Health Care Law Section, 2009-2014)
    Indiana Bar Association (Indiana Conclave on Legal Education Committee, 2010
    2014
    former Ethics Committee member)
    American Academy of Trial Attorneys
    Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana
    Indiana Society for Healthcare Risk Management (former president)
    American Society for Healthcare Risk Management (managers member)
    Indianapolis Legal Aid Society (2012-2018)
    Child Advocates (former board member)
    Roncalli Lacrosse (former parent representative)

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law - Indianapolis
    Class of 1989
    J.D.
    cum laude
    Other Education
    Indiana University School of Allied Health Science,
    Class of 1980
    A.S.

    Indiana University School of Allied Health Science
    Class of 1984
    B.S.
  • Personal Details & History
    Age
    Born in 1958
    Indianapolis, Indiana, April 29, 1958
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions